Joseph Smith Megathread

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's pursue this first, Simon.

Simon

Who were you on ZLMB?

Why do you think I was on ZLMB?

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey Simon

Since you believe withholding facts and giving only partial information is quite fine and honest. I have some investment opportunities for you. We just won't let you know the the money manager is named Bernie.

Isn't it sad that a Church that demands honesty from it members to enter the temple only wants to officially give a faith promoting almost mythical version of it founding? And the defenders like Simon come along and say essentially "tough crap." Go find all the warts your self.

And one of the Church's top leaders thinks that some of these truths that Simon says everyone should find on their own are not really all the useful.

And people make life altering commitments based on such little information as can be found in the missionary discussions.

Course internet research has made it easier for such to pursue more detail.

For those brought up LDS in an LDS home and culture, it may be a bit tougher.

[_Kishkumen]

Why? Any intelligent person in their late teens and early twenties understands that the world does not operate in sugar-coated stories like our elementary school history books, or our Sunday school classes. The history of any church, or of any organization should not come as a surprise to anyone. Nothing on this entire planet is perfect... nothing. That doesn't mean imperfection is harmful.

Yes, this is another one of those sticky issues, isn't it? And you won't be surprised, I am sure, to find that I have a different view from the one expressed above. You see, it is one of my pet peeves against the geeks of the Mopologetic set (and here we are excepting professor Belmont, who is once again modeling this behavior for research and educational purposes), that they judge everyone by their own solipsistic standard.

They say, "Why, I was savvy enough to figure these things out, so what is your problem? You must have been lazy and negligent not to pick up on what I was taught in my seminary/institute/BYU religion class/etc. It was right under your nose the whole time. For shame that you are upset with the LDS Church for your own failings."

Oh, yes. Indeed, everyone out there must have possessed the requisite talents, idiosyncratic interests, and opportunities that helped apologist X grapple with the discovery that Brigham Young wanted to build a temple out of sandstone because he believed it would turn into marble in a thousand years or some such. Shame on them for not seeing this as the Easter Bunny issue that it in fact is!

Obviously, this condescending and shortsighted view is problematic, in addition to sounding remarkably unsympathetic and school-marmish. Indeed, one should think that the last person to rely on anecdotal evidence and their own life stories to cover everyone else's personal experience would be this hyper-educated nerd apologist who comes onto the boards practicing his Latin composition for craps and giggles. Surely, this geek is not the person by whom we should measure the average LDS member's experience of Mormonism! But professor Belmont is right on target: the last person one would expect to make such a clubfooted error is the very person who makes it.

Read exhibit A, professor Belmont's insightful dramatization:

But it was available the whole time. As I said, I learned much of these controversial parts of History from seminary and institute class. The time spent involved in the Church is not harmful if one decides to disagree with it later. It wasn't harmful to me, it wasn't harmful to anyone I know, and it wasn't harmful to the entire faculty and student body of BYU and LDSBC, and it wasn't harmful to the bloggers on MST. So how can it be objectively harmful if it is harmful only to those who have a grudge with the Church?

Why yes! The bloggers at MST are just regular folk with IQs somewhere north of 135 who have PhDs and professional degrees as well as a burning desire to share their polysyllabic vocabularies, eloquently written prose, and long-considered truths. ROFLMAO!!! Wow. You are laying it on thick here, professor. Do you really think that a blockheaded Mopologist could push his head up his rear end that far?

Well, enough of that. Kudos to you, professor Belmont. Another fine demonstration of Mopologetic behavior. I think you might have pushed it a bit with the MST testimonial reference, but on the whole a capital outing.

In all seriousness, though, while it is surely reasonable to expect adults not to believe in fairy tales, it would help if the lessons and the materials most of them were exposed to on a regular basis included something decidedly superior to fairy tales. Unfortunately, the LDS curriculum is deficient in many regards, and one should not judge too harshly the poorly informed members who have been disturbed to find that Joseph Smith married other men's wives or some such. It is not as though they had been hearing about that in Sunday School for the past 30 years... or ever.

And for anyone's further edification, this subject is incidentally related to my most recent blog entry: http://ministrytomopologists.blogspot.com/2010/09/dangerous-critic-pt-i.html

My best regards,

The Right Reverend Severus M. Kishkumen, D.D., M.M.

[_Simon Belmont]

The irony of this is it is only true to a point. I didn't choose to be LDS, and I didn't choose to accept as truth things that were never taught to me.

Well what do you choose? Do you simply accept only things that are taught to you, or do you endeavor to discover things on your own -- to find out more about those subjects which interest you?

For example, let us hypothetically say that microbiology does not interest you in the slightest (it might, but for this example let us assume it does not). The principles at work in microbiology exist, and allow all living things to exist whether you know about them or not -- whether you take the time to study them or not. So, do you "choose to [not] accept as truth things [about microbiology] that were never taught to you" because you had no interest in finding out more about them?

That it is not standard in the church to allow people to exercises their agency is very much part of the point. What you excuse as "focusing on the gospel" is just message control in an attempt to prevent people from doing as you suggest above. That's all, really.

I reject your claim. If it were true, I am many others would have been excommunicated long ago. Throughout my life in the Church, I was always encouraged to read everything I could about topics which interested me, to expand my education in Church matters, and in secular matters. I took that to heart, and today I consider myself very successful.

The Wentworth Letter lesson I cited is a very good example. To quote the entire letter except a small part that might cause (gasp) adults to have to think and make a choice - God forbid! Better to focus on "the milk toast gospel". Good times, there.

If it has nothing to do with the lesson, it is not necessary to be in that particular lesson manual. It is a simple concept.

[_Simon Belmont]

Why do you think I was on ZLMB?

You said that you have frequented Mormon related message boards for 11 years. 11 years ago, ZLMB was the hotspot of Mormon debate and discussion. I simply assumed you were a part of it. Perhaps I was wrong.

[_Simon Belmont]

Reverend Kishkumen:

We do disagree on many things, but we also agree on some things. This academic diversity is what makes Cassius University such a lighthouse in an oppressed world. I welcome your disagreements!

Yes, this is another one of those sticky issues, isn't it? And you won't be surprised, I am sure, to find that I have a different view from the one expressed above. You see, it is one of my pet peeves against the geeks of the Mopologetic set (and here we are excepting professor Belmont, who is once again modeling this behavior for research and educational purposes), that they judge everyone by their own solipsistic standard.

When you begin bringing solipsism into a discussion, my ears perk. I hold a Master's Degree in philosophy. I tell you this not to sound arrogant, but to inform everyone that it is okay -- even healthy to pursue subjects that interest you to their terminus. I, for one, highly encourage it as it has been the greatest ride of my life!

They say, "Why, I was savvy enough to figure these things out, so what is your problem? You must have been lazy and negligent not to pick up on what I was taught in my seminary/institute/BYU religion class/etc. It was right under your nose the whole time. For shame that you are upset with the LDS Church for your own failings."

I am not so harsh. I was simply pointing out that I, and everyone I know, did not have anything close to the experiences some ex-Mormons claim they had in the Church. I did not seek out esoteric tomes, or participate in Aleister Crowley-style sex magick. I was simply taught these things throughout the natural course of my experience in the Church, as were many, many others. It is far from hidden.

Oh, yes. Indeed, everyone out there must have possessed the requisite talents, idiosyncratic interests, and opportunities that helped apologist X grapple with the discovery that Brigham Young wanted to build a temple out of sandstone because he believed it would turn into marble in a thousand years or some such. Shame on them for not seeing this as the Easter Bunny issue that it in fact is!

No, Reverend. I sincerely feel bad that some former members feel so hurt and betrayed. I do feel bad, but I also do not understand how the Church "lied" when the information was readily available.

Surely we must expect some level of intelligence among the common populace, would you not agree with that? The ability to read and to write would be a necessity for reading the Book of Mormon, for example.

Obviously, this condescending and shortsighted view is problematic, in addition to sounding remarkably unsympathetic and school-marmish. Indeed, one should think that the last person to rely on anecdotal evidence and their own life stories to cover everyone else's personal experience would be this hyper-educated nerd apologist who comes onto the boards practicing his Latin composition for s***s and giggles.

Experience is what we have to go by in this life. My own experience, and the experiences of the people who were and are in my circle of colleagues, friends, acquaintances, and family have painted a picture for me that is in stark contract to the claims of those who feel they have been duped by the Church. That is why I point it out, because it is foreign to me.

By the way, I also admitted that I was rusty on my Latin.

Surely, this geek is not the person by whom we should measure the average LDS member's experience of Mormonism! But professor Belmont is right on target: the last person one would expect to make such a clubfooted error is the very person who makes it.

I chose to take my education to the point that it has been taken. I chose to read and study the life of Joseph Smith for most of my life. Those are my choices, and mine alone. I do not expect everyone to make similar choices, but surely we must expect some level of comprehension and logic? Is it logical, by any measurement, to assume that a Sunday School class, which caters to various ages and levels of understanding, to delve into deep historical truths of the Church? The average member should think about this, then come to the conclusion "no, there is much more that isn't being said here because of the target audience. I should find out more about it."

I have some friends who happen to be Baptist. I have been to their services many times. Do you know what they teach from? The Bible, as surprising as it is. Do I expect the pastor to preach a sermon on the Southern Baptist's early history of supporting slavery? Or racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable things past church leaders have done? Of course not!

Why yes! The bloggers at MST are just regular folk with IQs somewhere north of 135 who have PhDs and professional degrees as well as a burning desire to share their polysyllabic vocabularies, eloquently written prose, and long-considered truths.

I am unsure if you are indicating that an IQ of 135 is high.

ROFLMAO!!!

Please be careful, Rev.

Wow. You are laying it on thick here, professor. Do you really think that a blockheaded Mopologist could push his head up his rear end that far?

I do not know. I have never attempted such a feat. My point was that men and women who have extensively studied Church history and theology, and who have also studied secular subjects extensively do not feel "duped" by the Church. They decided to find out for themselves, and when they did, it was more enlightening for them, and enabled their testimony to grow.

In all seriousness, though, while it is surely reasonable to expect adults not to believe in fairy tales, it would help if the lessons and the materials most of them were exposed to on a regular basis included something decidedly superior to fairy tales.

They appeal to a mass target audience of people who range in age from 18 to 100. That is why it was helpful for me to take seminary and institute classes, which is where I feel I have learned most of the "meat."

[_Jersey Girl]

Why do you think I was on ZLMB?

You said that you have frequented Mormon related message boards for 11 years. 11 years ago, ZLMB was the hotspot of Mormon debate and discussion. I simply assumed you were a part of it. Perhaps I was wrong.

Actually no, 11 years ago ZLMB wasn't the hotspot for Mormon debate and discussion. To the best of my knowledge, ZLMB didn't go online until the year 2000. I showed up on or about oh, I dunno, 2003/2004.

In answer to your question, I'd venture a guess that you know exactly who I was on ZLMB.

[_honorentheos]

Well what do you choose? Do you simply accept only things that are taught to you, or do you endeavor to discover things on your own -- to find out more about those subjects which interest you?

You are missing the point, and badly. The comparison is not one of a teacher not covering all of the possible information in a given subject in a school year (such as your many mathematical examples suggest). It's a problem with the teaching, the curriculum. It is more like Orwell's Ministry of Truth at work. It is like reading a communist Chinese account of the Tienanmen Square revolt. It is like ... I think I've made my point, even if you don't get it. Yeah, I get that the church doesn't prevent the information from being put "out there", but it also isn't Out There with it. It's all message control, and it seems to be working. Your whole blow-off of BY and blood atonement shows it's mechanisms are work.

But honestly, you are right about adults and the access that we have to information now. I think, frankly, that I represent your point as it really is - a former LDS who, being fortunately primed to be in a state of mind that allowed me to question the assumptions of my youth and upbringing, found access to more information and made the choices necessary to get out of the dark.

That it is not standard in the church to allow people to exercises their agency is very much part of the point. What you excuse as "focusing on the gospel" is just message control in an attempt to prevent people from doing as you suggest above. That's all, really.

I reject your claim. If it were true, I am many others would have been excommunicated long ago. Throughout my life in the Church, I was always encouraged to read everything I could about topics which interested me, to expand my education in Church matters, and in secular matters. I took that to heart, and today I consider myself very successful.

You are creating a strawman again and again with this point. It isn't about pursuing and gaining access to inform one's self. It's about the church controlling the message by limiting what is actually taught. You are free to read what you like as long as it doesn't actually change your way of thinking. If that sounds reasonable to you, I suggest you are not as successful in learning as you suppose.

But if you want to extend your point, I suggest taking your personally found knowledge to the Chapel or the Sunday School class. Talk as openly there as you claim to think and research. I had a fun experience with a Jewish Bible once in Sunday School. The funny thing was, the insights I gained in reading it were amazing. Other's commented when I answered a question in class from it that it really helped them out. The bishop's wife, however, didn't approve. Good times, again.

The Wentworth Letter lesson I cited is a very good example. To quote the entire letter except a small part that might cause (gasp) adults to have to think and make a choice - God forbid! Better to focus on "the milk toast gospel". Good times, there.

If it has nothing to do with the lesson, it is not necessary to be in that particular lesson manual. It is a simple concept.

Except that the letter was the lesson. And there was plenty of fluff in the letter that meant nothing that was left in. They left the whole letter in but a paragraph. The material left out was controversial. Message control, Simon. It's a simple concept. You are a victim Simon. Take some responsibility yourself here.

[_Kishkumen]

We do disagree on many things, but we also agree on some things. This academic diversity is what makes Cassius University such a lighthouse in an oppressed world. I welcome your disagreements!

And this is what makes you a fine colleague.

When you begin bringing solipsism into a discussion, my ears perk. I hold a Master's Degree in philosophy. I tell you this not to sound arrogant, but to inform everyone that it is okay -- even healthy to pursue subjects that interest you to their terminus. I, for one, highly encourage it as it has been the greatest ride of my life!

Wonderful for you. I imagine that is a very enriching adventure indeed. In this discussion, however, the point at issue was not your personal explorations of philosophy, but rather your expectations of what is normal for other LDS. You are clearly not representative of the "average" member, so your experience is actually quite a poor standard by which to judge others' experience of Mormonism. See?

Your MA in philosophy alone carries my point. Thanks.

I am not so harsh. I was simply pointing out that I, and everyone I know, did not have anything close to the experiences some ex-Mormons claim they had in the Church. I did not seek out esoteric tomes, or participate in Aleister Crowley-style sex magick. I was simply taught these things throughout the natural course of my experience in the Church, as were many, many others. It is far from hidden.

I had no idea you would take your demonstration this seriously. What commitment you exhibit! As should be clear to you by now, your experience as a geeky LDS person who holds an MA in philosophy and likes to play around with Latin online is not likely to be representative of the natural course of most other members' experience. Ergo, you are a particularly poor person to judge what that experience might be, unless of course you are interested in engaging in a thorough scientific study of the LDS correlated curriculum, members' experience of it, and why the internet obviously poses a danger to these poor people.

I do feel bad, but I also do not understand how the Church "lied" when the information was readily available.

Again, what you perceive to be "readily available" compared with what many others may judge as "readily available" probably differs a great deal. What you have to imagine, if only for a few moments, is what it would be like to be the guy who would rather watch NASCAR than read the Joseph Smith Papers vol. 2, or some similar thing. Indeed, one might be just as intelligent as you, and yet not be particularly drawn to knowing every last factoid about the life of the founding prophet. Maybe this person prefers learning horticulture or some such. I just don't think you appreciate, in an age of information overload, what power the editors and managers of information have over others.

Omitting important information can be tantamount to lying. I am not accusing the LDS Church of lying, but I certainly sympathize with those who feel like they were lied to.

Surely we must expect some level of intelligence among the common populace, would you not agree with that? The ability to read and to write would be a necessity for reading the Book of Mormon, for example.

I will assume that you served an LDS mission. Cast your mind back to the amount of reading and study that was actually required for baptism. What one requires as a minimum standard is probably the most one can expect of many people. The chances that 90% of these people would ever bother to read a Michael Quinn book from cover to cover, or even crack one issue of the FROB is frighteningly low. Heck, most of them don't read the Ensign (pitched at what, a second grade reading level?) on a regular basis. What they do is sit in the pews, and if they are really adventurous and dedicated, read some amount of the scriptures almost daily. My guess would be that there is a much larger number of Mormons addicted to World of Warcraft than really study out LDS history and doctrine, and I am probably right.

Experience is what we have to go by in this life. My own experience, and the experiences of the people who were and are in my circle of colleagues, friends, acquaintances, and family have painted a picture for me that is in stark contract to the claims of those who feel they have been duped by the Church. That is why I point it out, because it is foreign to me.

Yes, yes, yes. You understand that your bubble of privilege is not the norm. Good.

By the way, I also admitted that I was rusty on my Latin.

My friend, I was complimenting you on being the kind of geek who would do this sort of thing, not chiding you for being rusty. Unfortunately for your argument, it is just one more piece of evidence that supports my view that your sense of the openness of the LDS Church about its past is, shall we say, off target a bit.

I do not expect everyone to make similar choices, but surely we must expect some level of comprehension and logic? Is it logical, by any measurement, to assume that a Sunday School class, which caters to various ages and levels of understanding, to delve into deep historical truths of the Church? The average member should think about this, then come to the conclusion "no, there is much more that isn't being said here because of the target audience. I should find out more about it."

If this works so well, how come it isn't working? Why is it that the Church has identified the internet as a special challenge in our time? It's not just about the naked pictures. They must realize, on some level, that something is not working as it should. My answer would be a one-size-fits-all Correlation, which may be a swell idea for the universal Big Mac, but not so swift for religious doctrine.

I have some friends who happen to be Baptist. I have been to their services many times. Do you know what they teach from? The Bible, as surprising as it is. Do I expect the pastor to preach a sermon on the Southern Baptist's early history of supporting slavery? Or racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable things past church leaders have done? Of course not!

Come now, professor. Isn't this demonstration going a little too far? Its credibility is straining to the breaking point. Surely most apologists understand that it is the Titan's role of Joseph Smith in the Restoration that makes the history of him and his times so very crucial to LDS people. You set up a group of men to be on par with Abraham, Moses, and the apostle Peter, and now you want to moan about why people should be interested in the lives of these men enough to "google" them? Really?

They appeal to a mass target audience of people who range in age from 18 to 100. That is why it was helpful for me to take seminary and institute classes, which is where I feel I have learned most of the "meat."

And I guess that ain't working out so well for them, is it?

[_Simon Belmont]

Wonderful for you. I imagine that is a very enriching adventure indeed. In this discussion, however, the point at issue was not your personal explorations of philosophy, but rather your expectations of what is normal for other LDS. You are clearly not representative of the "average" member, so your experience is actually quite a poor standard by which to judge others' experience of Mormonism. See?

I do understand your point. But, I must ask: In a Church member is not interested in reading material outside of the Sunday school classroom (a la your NASCAR example), how do they come across this critical material that causes them to feel betrayed? Is it by accident? Is it by pure chance?

! As should be clear to you by now, your experience as a geeky LDS person who holds an MA in philosophy and likes to play around with Latin online is not likely to be representative of the natural course of most other members' experience. Ergo, you are a particularly poor person to judge what that experience might be, unless of course you are interested in engaging in a thorough scientific study of the LDS correlated curriculum, members' experience of it, and why the internet obviously poses a danger to these poor people.

Again, I do understand your point here. But, consider this example:

A lay person who is not interested in astronomy looks to the sky one night after NASCAR and wonders what really stars are made out of. The next day he goes to the public library (let us assume this was in the 1980s, before the availability of the Internet), and checks out a book about stars and other astral bodies by a well known astronomer (a 'geek' of astronomy). Because of this book, the lay person now has a better understanding of what stars are, what they are made of, and how they operate. This is enough for him, because he cannot very well examine a star first hand.

In my above example, the lay person "looked to the Geek" for knowledge.

Now, allow me to apply this to our current discussion.

A lay person who is not interested in reading Church-related material (critical or orthodox) somehow happens upon some critical material that severely shakes his faith. In anger, he proclaims "the Church LIED to me! I was never told this!" But instead of leaving the Church, when this man's momentary anger passes, he realizes that there are many "geeks" who actually know the critical material, plus a great deal more that he knows. He thinks to himself, "these Latter-day geeks remain strong in the Church, and their testimonies are unshaken despite the knowledge of the critical material I just read, plus [/i]much more[/i]. They have spent their lives in study of the deeper and more esoteric things of the Gospel, and their testimonies remain intact!"

He "looked to the Geeks" for knowledge.

Omitting important information can be tantamount to lying. I am not accusing the LDS Church of lying, but I certainly sympathize with those who feel like they were lied to.

As do I, believe it or not. Whether their feelings reflect what really happened or not, those feelings are valid to the person feeling them, so I do have great empathy.

I will assume that you served an LDS mission. Cast your mind back to the amount of reading and study that was actually required for baptism. What one requires as a minimum standard is probably the most one can expect of many people. The chances that 90% of these people would ever bother to read a Michael Quinn book from cover to cover, or even crack one issue of the FROB is frighteningly low. Heck, most of them don't read the Ensign (pitched at what, a second grade reading level?) on a regular basis. What they do is sit in the pews, and if they are really adventurous and dedicated, read some amount of the scriptures almost daily. My guess would be that there is a much larger number of Mormons addicted to World of Warcraft than really study out LDS history and doctrine, and I am probably right.

LOL about World of Warcraft -- members of my family are addicted to that, as well.

But, again, if a member is not interested in reading outside material about the Gospel, when the come across critical material, they should look to those who have for wisdom. They should "look to the Geeks."

If this works so well, how come it isn't working? Why is it that the Church has identified the internet as a special challenge in our time? It's not just about the naked pictures.

Actually, I think the majority of it is pornography.

They must realize, on some level, that something is not working as it should. My answer would be a one-size-fits-all Correlation, which may be a swell idea for the universal Big Mac, but not so swift for religious doctrine.

But all churches are guilty of this.

Come now, professor. Isn't this demonstration going a little too far? Its credibility is straining to the breaking point. Surely most apologists understand that it is the Titan's role of Joseph Smith in the Restoration that makes the history of him and his times so very crucial to LDS people. You set up a group of men to be on par with Abraham, Moses, and the apostle Peter, and now you want to moan about why people should be interested in the lives of these men enough to "google" them? Really?

No, I am not moaning about people Googling Joseph Smith, but when they come across disturbing material about him, they have three choices: 1. accept it at face value, get angry, proclaim that the Church LIED!!! and leave the Church. 2. Think about what they just read, and continue to do research on the subject, picking up actual books on it and learning all they can. 3. Look to the geeks -- if they have spent their lives studying it and their testimony remains intact, then so shall mine.